Melt bar and grill open

My partner and I have been to CP Melt 3 or 4 times this year and always walk right past the host and sit at the bar. We have twice eaten our food and had our beers and even left with to go cups while the same people are still sitting by the front doors waiting for a table.

First, let me leave this here...

...because drag queens singing about Chik Fil A is funny (note, not exactly safe for work).

Second, Cincinnati chili is delicious!

^^

I've never understood the resistance to simply walk up to a bar and eat there. When we lived in Columbus, we frequented the uber-popular (at the time) Ted's Bar & Grill in the arena district. While people would be waiting at the door, we would be enjoying our drinks and food...and not only that, but over a few visits we developed a great "dining relationship" with the bartender and a couple of the cooks, which is about the best thing that can happen to you at a place you love to eat at.

We do it all the time, and anymore find that we're more comfortable at the bar in most restaurants. Not only is it a potential chat with the bartender, but many times it's a chance to meet other drinkers/diners. The other night we popped into Smith and Wollensky at Easton and because we might have been judged as slightly under dressed for a table, the bar was perfect. Of course at any Melt, particularly the one at CP, that's not a real consideration. There, if you can snag a seat, it automatically makes it quicker.

Given the option, I'll sit at the bar. I can be seated immediately, bartenders don't do that annoying squatting down thing when they take your order, and the barkeep is right at hand to refill my glass of beer.

Serious question... Is it a faux pas to sit at the bar if nobody in the party is ordering alcohol? Is it considered bad etiquette to plop down on a bar stool to order a meal with a Coke? Do the bartenders find it annoying or do they just really not care?

If you tip well, I can't imagine they care very much what you order.

I will say this. If you've got guys behind you wanting space at the bar for actual drinking, then maybe. Ordering a meal helps. And my pet peeve is entire families that take up bar space, so in that case it's a nope.
As far as tipping goes, if you're an appropriate tipper, which you should be, alcohol adds more to the bill than free-refill cokes do. So those I know in the service industry do get *slightly* annoyed at bar patrons who lay around and don't drink. They won't treat you any different, but on a busy night they can't help but see potential tip money going out the window while they run their asses off for you anyway.

In most situations, no bar or restaurant will expect you to consume alcohol, that's always the patron's choice. But if you want to be ethical about it, scan around first and see how busy they are and how in-demand the bartender is and make the appropriate decision. Technically, you can sit wherever you want.

CP Maverick said:

What "denial of rights" might you be referring to? Because I'm not aware of any human rights violations that have anything to do with this conversation.

https://thinkprogress.org/chick-fil-a-still-anti-gay-970f079bf85/

Contrary to what the media would have you believe, disagreement with homosexuality is not "denial of human rights". It's just: disagreement.

These "anti-gay" organizations are not killing gays. They are stating their belief that it is wrong. Again, not denial of rights.

I see you read articles like you read the Bible - selectively. ;-)

Additionally, the Chick-fil-A Foundation gave at least $130,000 to the Salvation Army. The religious organization has a long history of anti-LGBTQ housing discrimination, opposition to same-sex marriage equality...

That's decidedly false. Since when is "government sanctioned marriage" a "right" for anyone? I have other issues with the government caring about who is in your bed. This gets into the multiple definitions of what a marriage is, and why there is such opposition to things like "same-sex marriage" as it definitely doesn't fit one of those definitions. If we had different terms for the union from perspective of the church vs the government this issue wouldn't have as much discussion. A government marriage license is a relic of The Church of England running the British government.

Rights are not granted to anyone. They are inherently part of life, the government is supposed to protect those rights.

The fact is that CFA and The Salvation Army are working to deny same-sex couples the right to a government-recognized marriage.

RCMAC said:

And my pet peeve is entire families that take up bar space, so in that case it's a nope.

Agreed! It irks me when I can't sit at the bar because multiple stools are taken up by children.

CP Maverick said:
Since when is "government sanctioned marriage" a "right" for anyone?

I'd say since the government started sanctioning marriages and extending privileges that were, for many years, extended only to heterosexual couples.

This gets into the multiple definitions of what a marriage is, and why there is such opposition to things like "same-sex marriage" as it definitely doesn't fit one of those definitions.

I'd say marriage is between two people who love each other. What are the multiple definitions of marriage, and how does same sex marriage not fit into "one" of those definitions? Which particular definition?

If we had different terms for the union from perspective of the church vs the government this issue wouldn't have as much discussion.

What terms? Why should "the" church be involved? Which church? Catholic? Episcopalian? Wiccan?

Rights are not granted to anyone.

The Bill of Rights? One of our nation's founding documents?

Mom: If you want to keep friends and not start wars on the internet, avoid conversation about politics, religion, and sex.

Me: You forgot to add Fast Lane and Chick Fil A.

Mom: Oh yes son, add those two also.

Mom: Don’t forget one must never speak of Drone Usage either.

This has been a civilized debate/conversation on a very controversial issue. It's very easy to point out that the drone debate was much more heated and at the end of the day mattered much less.

I will eat at CFA when it opens up near where I live. I'm well aware of there views and totally disagree with them. But that won't stop me from getting some CFA here and there.

However why anyone cares who people love or do "Things with" is beyond me. I've never understood why it's an issue to begin with and never will. Currently we live under a constitution that has at times contradicted itself. If I was high at the time forgive me. But separation of religion and state was apart of it. The state controls the benefits that come with "Marriage" or "Civil Union".

At the end of the day it's two people that have chosen to become a team and build something better than they could achieve on their own.

Mom: Don't talk about anything controversial.

Me: Why? Because that may result in an actual conversation about ideas and we could learn from one another?

We are a community. I'm proud to be apart of it.

djDaemon said:

CP Maverick said:

The "discrimination" you refer to is not one of institution rather of majority opinion. Anyone knows that going "against the grain" will be met with resistance, voluntary or not. You are implying that the company has anti-gay policies in place, which is completely false.

Oh, please. True, they don't have actual, prescribed policies in place, but they obviously tolerate (and perhaps encourage) discriminatory behavior. Which is the problem.

Not even close. I have plenty of friends who work for chick-fil-a who would love to disagree with you. This is a huge misconception. you look silly thinking/spreading this.

<pointing>

Gosh, the rails are waaaay over there.